Prove to me, using only science, that science is real.
You cant.
>>7684626
Science is not real, its a set of theories that is excessively good at predicting reality.
>>7684626
Prove to me that your challenge is real, using only more challenges.
Prove to me that the universe is real, using ONLY the universe.
Protip:
>You can't
>>7684626
Prove math/logic are real using only math/logic.
Pro tip: you can't
Prove to me, using only my imagination, that you're not a figment of my imagination.
You cant.
>>7684626
Me on the left
>>7684626
Women and men have very different hair. I'm not sure what about the synthesis, or composition differs so highly, but it's a relatively fixed difference that remains regardless of hair type or ancestry. Maybe it's oil secretion? Don't know.
Even without physical clues, just by looking at their hair, you can readily tell an individual's sex most of the time. Left is clearly male, right it's less clear but still definitely on the male side. Sex is surprisingly difficult to mask, whether male or female. There's just too much that the brain is very good at evaluating.
>>7684675
Yup. Warmfreshpaint right there.
>>7684675
Both male.
>>7684626
>Prove to me, using only science, that science is real.
I think you're very confused about what science is and what it's used for.
>>7684626
Well, no shit.
>>7684632
This guy gets it
Human knowledge is fundamentally incomplete, we probably can never prove anything with certainty. We use what works and is useful for us, but we might be wrong about everything. The thing is, you have to make assumptions because otherwise you'd never think about anything at all. We're constrained by how our minds work.
We use observation to prove science.
I've also just observed op being a huge faggot, so i can determine theres at least a correlation between ops faggorty and all the dicks op swallows.
>>7684736
Well the actual incompleteness theorems really say that any axiomatic system that tries to explain all the basic principals of math will always be either incomplete (unable to prove some mathematical statements true/false) or inconsistent(contains some logical paradox in its axioms).
But of course you can draw larger conclusion from it and get into the whole "he proved we can't prove anything!!!!" thing. Basically I think you can take it one of 3 ways
1. Incompleteness suggests there is no absolute truth
2. Incompleteness suggests absolute truth is beyond math/formal logic but not necessarily beyond us.
3. Incompleteness suggests absolute truth is beyond math/formal logic and bayond us.
It seems to me Gödel fell into the second camp. He accepted, obviously since he proved it, that math was not the tool to answer all questions but he believed the human mind could go beyond these things. Gödel actually argued that human intuition was proof of this.
Turing seemed to be more in the third camp. He felt that we're not so different from machines and just like a computer has certain limitations so do we.
>>7684756
Isnt this similar to the length of the coast paradox? You cant measure the length of any coast to 100% accuracy because the more accurate you make your measurements, the more problems arise because length increases? As well, it always changes slightly.
>>7684626
>tfw I've been rejected and ignored so many times that I can't look at a girl and feel anything but disgust anymore
>>7684774
>girl
>>7684777
I appreciate you bring trips to this thread.
Thank you
>>7684794
I didn't even notice. Thanks for pointing it out!
Science is. There it is real.
But seriously nothing can prove itself. Religion can't prove religion. And a gun can't be operated by a gun. A pencil can't write. A car can't move. Etc.
>>7684626
>Implying that one even needs to prove that abstractions such as science are real.
>>7684626
Science is equal to its complex conjugate.
>>7684935
>a gun can't be operated by a gun
>>7684777
Ah. Maybe that's it.
>>7684951
Oh look, a bunch of "humans" operating guns. Please tell me how a gun alone with no intervention can load, fire, fix and repair itself in any manner
>>7684774
Boo fucking hoo. You want a medal?
>>7684626
>Prove to me, using only me, that I am real. You can't.
You can do it, too! Here:
>Prove to me, using only (blank), that (blank) is real. You can't. Because I'm a first-semester philosophy major.
>>7684626
The guy on right looks like Guy Manuel de Homem-Christo.
>>7684771
Kind of but it's different cause Godel actually proved it, its not just a thought experiment the incompleteness theorem is legit math.
How can this thread be real if our eyes aren't real?
>Prove to me, using only religion, that religion is real.
>You can! That's how religion works!
>>7685075
>>7684756
I disagree.
Godel being a lover of Leibniz appears to have thought that math IS the answer to everything and the way to do that was through the development of Leibniz's monadology.
>>7684951
>weebs
Why even try
>>7684675
Don't care, would still let them give me a two-mouth blowjob.
>>7685247
He believed we needed something new, fundamentally different from current systems of reasoning/math.
I guess you could say that's still math but it wouldn't be math as we know it.
>>7684626
Right chick is best
>>7685371
>>7685371
I vote left
>>7684626
science is a fucking process jackass not the results it generates
>>7684629
>excessively good at predicting reality
You're right, that's why we need to mystify it into a form of religion where scientists are like monks, and engineers are it's preachers.
>>7684777
witnessed
>>7684626
>Prove to me, using only science, that science is real. You can't.
I swear, language and semantics are literally the worst thing to have ever happened to humanity. Of course you won't understand shit if you keep using these ambiguous concepts. They're nothing but buzzwords that try to sound deep and create unsolvable doubts, not because we dont "know" the answers, but because they can't be "found", because they're mere creations of semantics. Define "real". Define "science". Define "define". You will define them using words, and then I will ask you to define the words you used in your definitions. Ultimately, understanding doesn't come from language. Any conclusion that is made through semantics, including the assumption that everything is "subjective" given the ambiguity of the concept of "subjectivity" and "everything", doesn't mean crap.
Enjoy your false deep-sounding philosophy of no-knowledge.
>>7685447
Define "false"
>>7685487
Exactly.
>>7685431
>mystify it into a form of religion where scientists are like monks, and engineers are it's preachers
Say hello to cult mechanicus
>>7685447
This is well put, and raises interesting questions.
>>7684626
prove to me that maddie isn't male
fapped to him anyway
>>7684626
>maddie
that's sam, fuck off
>>7684626
holy kek, alice is a cute trap.
>>7684626
>Science Produces Science
>Science is Relative to Science
>Science is Relative to Non-Science
>Non-Science on occasion produces science
OP your question is like asking if jizz is real
Science as in empiricism? Sure.
Combine baking soda and vinegar. Watch as the exothermic reaction emits bubbles. These bubbles are carbon dioxide. Inhale them OP.
>>7685117
Why am I rolling at this post?
>>7685371
agreed
If you're trying to prove something then what you're doing is not science.
The basis of science is doubt.
>>7685371
>chick
>>7684626
1=1
seems pretty solid to me
>>7686685
>Calling Godel stupid
>Not understand proof
Kek
We can "know" math/science are true, we cannot prove it.
>>7686689
What if I say 1=2? Prove me wrong.
>>7687575
Depends on the framework we've chosen to work within, and it depends on if the constituent parts of the universe can ultimately be subdivided finitely, we can verify this, and it ends at a base unit(s) that comprises all else. Then quantities can truly be said to exist, and 1=1 can have inherent and standalone meaning.
>>7687588
>reach "fundamental" unit
>"but what is inside of it"
>goes either infinitely or reaches nothingness
>math is ultimately based.on either non-fixed quantities or nothing at all
>>7687575
Integers are defined as incrementing and distinct.[math]\forall a \in \mathbb{R} \text{ : } a+1 \neq a[/math]
>>7687629
>>reach "fundamental" unit
>>"but what is inside of it"
Finding an answer to this means that the fundamental unit wasn't fundamental at all. In physics this happens every generation or two. In pure mathematics it's so rare that you could say it never happens at all.
>>7686709
>What is tautology?
Are you retarded? Axioms are self proven, theorems fall under completeness and incompleteness.
